Re: Future Rosters

IMO we need shooters. Look back at all of our good or great teams we were loaded with shooters. This past year we basically had 1. The game is played differently now (anybody watch Golden State play). Position number 5 doesn't mean what it used to. I like the roster we have coming up just hope some take a step forward.

Re: Future Rosters

Originally Posted by Justwin

IMO we need shooters. Look back at all of our good or great teams we were loaded with shooters. This past year we basically had 1. The game is played differently now (anybody watch Golden State play). Position number 5 doesn't mean what it used to. I like the roster we have coming up just hope some take a step forward.

The Jackrabbit women had more than one shooter, but they often had the lineup which made it one shooter. Thompson and Geubert were the steady contributors with Young and Ober jumping in their contributions. The somewhat accurate excuse of Miller being out made the opposition defense look much better as the shooting/playmaker is a tough act to follow for Alexander who was generally an efficient ballhandler but not scorer. 2016-17 was a down year, but it should not be considered a trend of not being in the hunt for the top spot or the NCAA qualifier.

Re: Future Rosters

Originally Posted by OldHare

The Jackrabbit women had more than one shooter, but they often had the lineup which made it one shooter. Thompson and Geubert were the steady contributors with Young and Ober jumping in their contributions. The somewhat accurate excuse of Miller being out made the opposition defense look much better as the shooting/playmaker is a tough act to follow for Alexander who was generally an efficient ballhandler but not scorer. 2016-17 was a down year, but it should not be considered a trend of not being in the hunt for the top spot or the NCAA qualifier.

I guess you could argue that there were 2 shooters on the team. When your starting PF and back-up PF (starting C when Ober was out) are your 3rd and 4th best 3-points shooters at 30%, you are not a good shooting team. Not by SDSU standards anyway!
I think most people would take 30%+ by your C's and PF's but when they are your "shooters", your team should struggle.

Re: Future Rosters

Originally Posted by Justwin

IMO we need shooters. Look back at all of our good or great teams we were loaded with shooters. This past year we basically had 1. The game is played differently now (anybody watch Golden State play). Position number 5 doesn't mean what it used to. I like the roster we have coming up just hope some take a step forward.

It was so much fun watching the 08-09 team play,talk about loading a team with shooters.They hit 16 treys in a game twice that season,once in the regular season ,once in the NCAA tournament ,during which both the Jacks and Iowa St. tied the NCAA record for most 3's in a NCAA Tournament game,the Jacks shooting 50% from 3 in their contest.We had Jill Young (.461% -82 3 ptrs) and Kristin Rotert(.323%-60 3 ptrs),Ketty Cornemann(.323%-32),Macy Michelson(.286%-18),Jenn Warkenthien(.359%-28),Stacy Oistad(.376%-38)Ashlea Muckenhirn(.379-22)Allison Anderson(.348%-8)The team shot 291-811 for.359%.I remember Oregon at Frost ,kind of boring game at the start ,so I was kind of day dreaming,we started hitting shots and I looked at the scoreboard after having not looked at it in quite awhile and we were like 20 + pts ahead in seemingly no time. Later AJ even mentioned in an interview that he didn't think TCU knew how explosive his team that year could be.That was a shooting team,with good inside play too,and when it rained (3's),it poured sometimes,not all the time though.

Last edited by jackdaniel; 06-15-2017 at 05:53 PM.

"striving to make SDSUFans.com a better place"..... aka "Homer Rabbit"

"AiNt NO fuN wHeN the Rabbit gOt tHe GuN "

“ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
― Alan Greenspan

Re: Future Rosters

Originally Posted by 91jack

I guess you could argue that there were 2 shooters on the team. When your starting PF and back-up PF (starting C when Ober was out) are your 3rd and 4th best 3-points shooters at 30%, you are not a good shooting team. Not by SDSU standards anyway!
I think most people would take 30%+ by your C's and PF's but when they are your "shooters", your team should struggle.

I'd say two shooters for sure last season ,Guebert and Kerri at .389%.Anytime you get close to 40% shooting 3's, that's pretty good.Especially attempting a lot and with with the opposition noting who might be the ones who knock down 3's.So,if there were only two,then .389 is pretty good.Lots of pressure there if the load isn't distributed better for the team as a whole. Maddie and Jill Young are/were just super good shooters who could shoulder a lot of the load and we've had a lot of dangerous shooters who could get hot like Rotert for example.We have been fortunate in the past with shooters like Paluch ,Waytashek ,others too numerous, and maybe we've become a little accustomed to having teams who hit the 3 with a pretty good consistency.I think W. Ill WBB is trying to or already have loaded their team with 3 pt shooters.

Macy being back,Stevens has been a proven shooter,maybe natural progression in shooting from last years youngsters,along with the newcomers (Fr), Maddie being Maddie,I'm hoping with more depth we'll be a better 3 pt shooting team this season.

Last edited by jackdaniel; 06-15-2017 at 06:40 PM.

"striving to make SDSUFans.com a better place"..... aka "Homer Rabbit"

"AiNt NO fuN wHeN the Rabbit gOt tHe GuN "

“ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
― Alan Greenspan

Re: Future Rosters

Originally Posted by Justwin

IMO we need shooters. Look back at all of our good or great teams we were loaded with shooters. This past year we basically had 1. The game is played differently now (anybody watch Golden State play). Position number 5 doesn't mean what it used to. I like the roster we have coming up just hope some take a step forward.

Agree.

We are here to add what we can to life, not get what we can from life. -Sir William Osler

Re: Future Rosters

Originally Posted by Justwin

IMO we need shooters. Look back at all of our good or great teams we were loaded with shooters. This past year we basically had 1. The game is played differently now (anybody watch Golden State play). Position number 5 doesn't mean what it used to. I like the roster we have coming up just hope some take a step forward.

Well, hard to disagree with needing sharp shooters. Everyone wants that. However, I don't think Ober's presence in the middle on the defensive end can be overlooked. Her length was a major issue for opponents with being a shot clocker and rebounder. My guess is we will really miss her presence and vocal leadership and enthusiasm.

Re: Future Rosters

I think we may enjoy reminiscing Kerri's passing skills and her ability to hit shots when we needed a lift and her ability to push the fast break.As well as Obers great defense.Both reminded me of past great players who also stepped up in their later years,like Waytashek,Young J,Paluch and many more. We've always moved on without the graduating seniors,missing those attributes they brought to the game,but enjoying and discovering new attributes from the players who come back on the team for the forth coming season,as well as first year freshmen,experiencing college basketball for their first time.We continue to recruit the players who can make it as painless as possible,as well as the under grads improving year to year,transfers making a difference,etc as well.That's part of enjoying new seasons,the "how good will we be next year" factor.

Yes.I'll miss the graduating seniors,but I'll enjoy the new team finding their own identity,and continuing to have a strong team,although it's strengths and weaknesses might be a little bit different with a slightly different make up of players.Should be fun.

"striving to make SDSUFans.com a better place"..... aka "Homer Rabbit"

"AiNt NO fuN wHeN the Rabbit gOt tHe GuN "

“ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
― Alan Greenspan